BBC Admits Editorial Breach Over McWhirter (Eventually)

From the Telegraph: “BBC apology over suggestion that Norris McWhirter was a fascist” “David Baddiel and Alan Davies discussion about Norris McWhirter on Radio Five Live was in breach of the BBC’s editorial guidelines.”

Cranmer points out that when he and others complained to the BBC about the comments they were informed: “The Alan Davies Show is a live, light hearted, entertainment programme and in this context we are satisfied that no broadcasting guidelines were broken.” One can just imagine the conversation at the BBC: “Bunch of f***ing right-wingers – fob ’em off with any old crap.”

It was only following the intervention of MPs that the BBC looked into the matter further and admitted its guidelines had indeed been breached. Cranmer asks: “Will the BBC now be apologising to those of us whose complaints they summarily dismissed out of hand?” Don’t hold your breath, Your Grace.

(H/t George R)

Mangold on Panorama

Not sure if this was mentioned in the comments, but ex-Panorama journalist Tom Mangold unloaded on his former employer in Sunday’s Independent:

Primark’s objections were investigated by the BBC’s internal Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU); its admirable report, completed last summer, was, at the request of Primark, never published – because the retailer thought it would jeopardise its appeal to the BBC Trust. Remarkably, senior BBC managers used that decision to put an aggressive public relations operation into action: someone authorised the press office to brief several newspapers that Panorama had been exonerated, when, in fact, the report had done nothing of the sort. In fact, the ECU, set up after the Hutton inquiry, specifically highlighted the suspicious nature of the footage in question.

It is only now, three years after the programme was broadcast, that the BBC Trust has forced Panorama to admit the error of its ways. In the meantime, the BBC’s arrogant refusal to admit it was wrong has resulted in an editorial catastrophe not only for Panorama, the flagship, but for all the corporation’s journalism.

And this from Tim Black on the self-righteous moralising behind the Panorama programme is good too:

That ethical consumerism is almost solely concerned with using the lives of the world’s impoverished to chastise those crowding the aisles of Tesco or Primark was clear from a particular segment in On the Rack. There, Panorama reporter Tom Heap confronted shoppers across Britain with the now infamous child-labour footage. This, as Daniel Ben-Ami remarked at the time on spiked, was ‘the contemporary equivalent of forcing someone to confess a sin’. It was a moment that captured the deeply elitist, profoundly snobbish core of ethical consumption. That is, it’s all about elevating those who shop ethically above those who shop on a budget: the masses can have their cheap chic, runs the barely concealed logic, they can even look good – but we are better than them.

So sure of their superiority, in fact, that they think it’s OK to fake a crucial scene and then bullshit the papers about it later.

MORE LAME BBC U.S. COVERAGE

Check out this BBC article about the Obama impersonator whose act at the Republican Leadership Conference was cut short. It’s basically an excuse for an unnamed anti-Republican BBC hack (ie any BBC journalist covering US affairs) to reproduce some jokes at the expense of the leadership contenders, but it’s also noteworthy for this piece of anti-Tea Party propaganda:

The ultra-conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican Party had questioned the legitimacy of Mr Obama’s presidency, claiming he had been born outside the US and was thus ineligible to hold the highest office in the land, as mandated under the constitution.

The, ahem, “ultra-conservative” Tea Party (Wiki offers the somewhat less loaded “conservative and libertarian“) is not a birther movement. Linking the two is a ploy by opponents (eg lame comedians, lefty hacks) to discredit the Tea Party – which is of course why the anonymous lazy biased idiot who wrote the piece included it. There are undoubtedly some birthers who would also call themselves Tea Party supporters but Obama’s citizenship is a fringe issue and has never been central to the small government movement. It’s worth remembering that the midwife of birtherism was the contest for the Democrat nomination between Barack and Hillary, but you won’t find a BBC article which makes sweeping birther generalisations about Clinton supporters. That’s because they’re Democrats – the good-guy Americans – and BBC journalists are only interested in making the American Right [cue scary music] look bad.

SPIN CYCLE

Toby Harnden in today’s Telegraph:

The White House spin machine moved into top gear as the Republican candidates prepared to take the stage for the first major debate on Monday night. “Make way for the seven dwarves,” was one line of attack.

Mark Mardell’s opening line from his account of the debate:

It is no comment on their political stature, but the would-be presidents did at times seem like the seven dwarves…

And on the Today programme yesterday:

“It did occur to me seeing the seven of them walk up there, I’m afraid the term ‘seven dwarves’ flashed through my mind, and I did wonder where Snow White was as well.”

It occurred to you, eh Mark?

BBC/Guardian United In Palin Email Frenzy

A short while ago I posted the following in the Open Thread:

I see the Guardian is going balls deep over the Palin emails. They’ve even got a dedicated Twitter account about it, FFS. And if something is big news to the Guardian you can guarantee it will be big news to the BBC.

Right on cue, here’s an exchange of tweets between Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis and the Guardian’s Ian Katz:

Don’t you just love that “(of course). (yiippee)”? They hate her. They really hate her.

UPDATE. They’re searching urgently for something really bad:

And just for good measure, also on Newsnight tonight:

Finding BBC bias – like shooting fish in a barrel.

Spot The Difference

[Update added]

Two stories involving American politicians who have been embarrassed by photos on the internet. One was a little-known first-time candidate standing for the House of Representatives last year, the other is a prominent, well-known congressman who has been in the House of Representatives for over 12 years and has designs on becoming mayor of New York.

Apart from the fact that the BBC rushed to run the first story as soon as it broke in the States, and has tried desperately to ignore the second story for well over a week, can anyone spot a slight difference in the BBC’s treatment of the two? (I’ve provided some helpful clues.)


UPDATE. Here’s the report on Weinergate from the Today programme this morning. Spot the missing word.

Listen!

Richard Bacon, who is doing his show from New York this week, discussed the story yesterday and again there was no mention of the fact that Weiner is a Democrat.

It almost goes without saying, but I’m going to say it anyway – if Weiner had been a Republican we’d have heard about this story a week ago and his party affiliation would’ve been central to the BBC’s reporting.